The Problem of Infinite Regress

One particular argument for the existence of God is as follows: Given that the universe exists, there must be something that created it. So if God is defined as the creator of this universe, then God must exist.

There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.

Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.

In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?

Nightmares That Kill

Papa Roach in "Blanket Of Fear":

So hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality
Hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality

I'm falling in my dream; I finally hit the ground
I'm falling in my dream, I finally hit the ground
I hit the ground
Because I, I cant keep my mind from going into dark places (Full lyrics)

About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy

This post handles the issue of open-relationships, however it approaches the subject from the point of view of the emotions that are relevant to relationships. The notion of love is very critical to the conception of interpersonal relationships, because the emotion of love is one of the determining factors to the nature of that relationship.

Love is a general term. Consider the following statements:
- "I love chocolate."
- "I love science."
- "I love my parents."
- "I love my son."
- "I love being in love." (Or a general case of loving a particular emotion)
- "I love that person." (In the context of friendship)
- "I love that person." (In a context of romance)

As it seems, there are different notions of love. There are different types of things that can be the object of love. And there are numerous ways to love an object of a given category.

However, the general theme of love has to do with the feelings that are accompanied with the object of love. Generally speaking, pleasant and positive feelings. So when you say, "I love chocolate" your love is contingent on the 'reinforcing' feeling that occurs when you experience eating chocolate. Same applies to the statement about loving science, which implies that there are pleasant feelings that accompany the experience of studying science.

Let's take a moment and talk about the concept of a 'reinforcing feeling'. I will not discuss the causality issue of reinforcing feelings, but the phenomenon of it. A reinforcing feeling is the type of feeling that you will want to experience again. You eat chocolate, you like the taste, so you will want to eat more. You find studying science enjoyable so you will engage yourself in that activity. And this relationship between an experience and the feelings that accompany that experience, coupled with a contingency that the feelings in question are pleasant (hence reinforcing feelings) would be the basis upon which the emotion of love is realized.

So, let's further our discussion to the cases where the object of love is a person. In those cases, the interaction is more elaborate, and the concept of reciprocal love comes into light. If you love chocolate, the interaction is strictly one-sided since chocolate is an inanimate object. If you love your cat, the situation gets slightly more complicated since the interaction is two-sided. However, when you love a person there are many more elements that come into play. Reciprocity in love becomes a major element. However, in my personal view which is consistent with the view of reinforcing feeling, love of one person to another is independent of being 'loved back'. Hence, one-sided love is an actual possibility. In general, reciprocation of love acts as an amplification tool. In other words, if you find that being with a person is a pleasant experience, and they in return find your company pleasurable, two things will happen: First, the two-sided positive interaction will make the experience more pleasurable, and hence would enhance the 'quality' of the experience. Second, the two people are naturally going to spend more time together, and thus will increase the 'quantity' of the experience. And the combination of those two effects would amplify the experiences which realizes a more profound notion of love.

This conclusion is important, so as to differentiate love as a feeling directed towards a person, and love viewed in the context of a relationship. This implies that the conception of love in the context of a relationship needs to be a pleasant experience in the case of bestowal of love, as well as, the reception of love.

While the concept of love that I just described is highly self-centered, but still this love involves the concept of a relationship (in the general sense) and can also be related to interpersonal relationships. If we consider the statement "Person-X loves Object-Y", we are describing an interaction between 'Person-X' and 'Object-Y', and not only are we implying that there is an interaction, but that this interaction is considered to be a pleasant experience from Person-X's point of view. And this interaction embodies the relationship in question.

After this crude introduction to the emotion of love, let's divert our attention to the emotion of jealousy. Again jealousy means different things to different people, but the most general theme about jealousy is fear of loss. This is the main property that I will assume to be characteristic to the emotion of jealousy. And to make a stronger notion of jealousy, jealousy is about fear of loss of ownership.

To make an example outside the realm of sexuality and fidelity, let's consider this typical scenario concerning children. Let's consider two little kids, and they are playing together in a room. And in that room there is a toy that belongs to one of the kids. At some point the kid that does not own the toy, goes ahead and starts playing with that toy. Now, the kid who the toy belongs to would notice this action, and this would trigger the emotion of jealousy, and consequently would go to the other kid and asserts his sense of ownership. He might say something like: "Give it back, it's mine!". This scenario illustrates a display of the emotion of jealousy.

And this is exactly what happens in a sexual context or even a pseudo-sexual context. If a man sees another man hitting on 'his woman', it would trigger an emotion of jealousy, and would consequently try to assert his sense of ownership. Needless to say, this is a general theme that applies to girls being jealous towards another girl, and it also applies in a context of non-heterosexuality. That being said, the general theme here is that people are acting based on a perceived sense of ownership.

However, this sense of ownership needs to be put in question. It is a generally accepted notion that people who are in love 'belong together'. But jealousy is actually demonstrating a different notion that people who are in love 'belong TO each other'. Personally, I consider both notions to be misleading. And I also consider the notion of 'belonging-to someone' as not only misleading, but insulting as well. In other words, I would consider the notion that 'Person-X belongs to me' as an insult towards Person-X, and I -personally- find that insulting someone I love as an action that is not in my best interest. Likewise, I would put into question a statement of love from a person who is insulting me.

So, if we go back to the view that love is correlated to pleasant feelings, I find that insult does not fit the profile of love, and consequently jealousy and love are at direct contradiction (at least based on that particular view of insult and unpleasantness).

There is a notion that some people believe that jealousy is an act of love. The argument would go something like: "If you love a person, it is a normal -maybe even healthy- to display the emotion of jealousy." Personally, I dismiss such an argument based on my above mentioned views. However, there are some more generalized accounts based on which we might dismiss this argument. One such account is the view that jealousy is a 'distancing emotion' and it also is a display of distrust. Jealousy at its core is a fight of "me" against "them", and in this mental picture, the person views himself at a distance, and views that his partner and the third party are forming a bond which he needs to break. And hence, the person who feels jealousy continuously perceives the relationship to be in flux, where the relationship is suffering from continuous ups and downs that he needs to fix. This shows that the person feeling jealousy sees the relationship as 'hanging-by-a-thread', and also shows a great amount of insecurity regarding the trustworthiness of his partner.

Jealousy in terms of the objects that the dynamics are occurring can be thought of as a 'threesome'. It is a 'threesome' in the sense that it involves three entities. The lover, the object of love, and the rival. When talking about jealousy we are often discussing the theme of a love triangle. A guy is in love with a girl, and there is another guy trying to win the love of that girl. However, if we take one step back, and see the larger picture, we find out that jealousy (in the sexual context) is actually a 'foursome', the fourth entity being society. This is in the sense that the jealous person is not only concerned about his personal interest in the loved one, but also concerned about the feelings of shame and embarrassment that is associated with infidelity. There is a social pressure that if a man sleeps with your wife, then you will be socially rejected. If we want to discuss jealousy in terms of fear of loss, we can easily see that a person has not only a loved person at stake, but also a perceived notion of 'honor' as it is applicable in the social context. I will not go into further details about this problem, but it is obvious that the social context of a relationship is influential.

In addition to jealousy, there is a related -but very different- aspect of negative emotions that are emphasized in closed-relationships. This aspect is mostly illustrated in discussions I have about open-relationships with guys, namely envy. The argument goes as follows: "Imagine that you got a girlfriend, you agree to have an open-relationship, and the end result is that your girlfriend is having sex with a new guy every day, while you are failing at finding any sexual partners. Would you still want the relationship to be open?" Now, obviously this argument reduces open-relationships to a contest of which partner 'scores' the most. Envy is the emotion that is characterized by distress over other people's good fortune, which is exactly whats going on in this particular argument. This kind of argument shows deep misunderstanding of the person making that argument as to what open-relationships are really about, but it also demonstrates a very negative aspect of closed-relationships. Jealousy is an emotion directed towards a third party, who is perceived as threat to what we own. On the other hand, envy is an emotion directed towards your partner in such a way that you'd hate for good things to happen to your partner. And this emotion of envy, in my opinion, is at much more contradiction with regards to love, compared to jealousy. In other words, if the concept of love leads to destructive actions directed towards your partner, then that conception of love is self-refuting.

Now, let's talk about a concept that many people have, namely 'true love'. The notion of 'true love' implies the existence of another notion of 'false love'. I am not interested in the exact definitions of those notions, but the fact that we differentiate those categories is revealing. The distinction implies that 'true love' has specific features that do not exist in the general concept of love. And since we are considering love in terms of the feelings that accompany it, this means that the person making the distinction has a different set of feelings to describe 'true love' as opposed to 'false love'. So, for the sake of argument, let's define 'true love' as the type of love someone is interested in. Which means that the person looking for 'true love' is looking for a specific set of feelings that accompany that emotion of love.

Going back to the emotion of jealousy, some people might argue that in fact jealousy leads to pleasant feelings. To demonstrate that, let's go back to the example of the kids, where one kid starts playing with a toy that does not belong to him. To view the events in terms of causality we can say that:
1- The kid who displays jealousy has a perceived notion of ownership of the toy.
2- The kid then perceives a situation where his sense of ownership is threatened
3- Based on that perception the emotion of jealousy is triggered
4- The kid decides to act upon his sense of ownership
5- The kid consequently asserts his sense of ownership
And at stage 5, our example has ended. But let's consider the continuation of this scenario, by supposing that the other kid concedes and gives back the toy.
6- The toy is returned
7- At this point, the kid to whom the toy belongs to might get a sense of authority over the other kid.
8- This perceived sense of authority is interpreted as a pleasant feeling.

We can see that jealousy has a causal relationship with pleasant feelings under some circumstances. And this leads some people to find a correlation between love and jealousy. Basically, the person who asserts that his notion of love requires sexual fidelity, is indirectly trying to satisfy a need for authority. So when a person tells a loved one: "I expect you to be sexually faithful", he is indirectly saying: "One of the pleasant feelings that I experience with you is a sense of authority, and you need to keep it that way, because my love for you is contingent on that pleasant feeling." In other words, love is reduced to a tool using which a person maintains his sense of authority.

At this point we can go back to the notion of 'true love', and ask ourselves: "Is that sense of authority a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?". For some people the answer is 'yes', but for me, the answer is 'definitely not'. Obviously, this argument implies that open-relationships does not work for everybody, only the subset of people who reject the view that jealousy is a desirable feature of love.

Of course, some people would argue that expectations of fidelity have less to do with the sense of authority, and more to do with the sense of security. I agree that in this view expectations of fidelity can be viewed less harshly, but once again the question is raised: "Is that sense of security a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?"

Finally, this series of posts handles only a small part of my personal theory of open-relationships. Open-relationships can be approached in terms of emotions, psychology, dynamics of relationships, ethics of relationships, or practice. This post discussed the emotions of love and jealousy. But this is not the most important issue regarding open-relationships in my opinion. The issue the I think is most important is the dynamics of the relationships, which I introduced (without details) in this post. In the context of that post, love is part of the motivation to be in a relationship. And thus, this series is merely one aspect of the broad topic of open-relationships.

In this series:
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity
Next: About Love - Part 3: Love and Sexuality
Next: About Love - Part 4: True Love

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

Music fans commonly wonder about the guidelines to distinguish the different genres of music that they listen to. Couple of years ago, I used to listen to the Metal and Rock categories. But the subtle differences between the different sub-categories sometimes still puzzle me. Unfortunately, I never to this date found any properly illustrated guide to this category of music. However, nowadays, I am all into Electronic Music, and Trance in particular. Interestingly, I have found a proper guide to Electronic Music. So if you ever wondered what's the difference between Trance, Techno, and House, today is your lucky day. Even all the sub-genres of those encompassing musical genres. Everything with excerpts of typical songs that belong to that particular category!

Details can be found in Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music.

Raped Freedom of Speech

Read this shocking news item!

Enough said.

It might be a good idea to start encrypting all your communications online!! At least this is technically a good way to protect your freedom of speech and privacy in a world where laws and regulations don't respect our basic human rights.

No Giving Up on Open-Relationships

This entry is an addendum to a previous post: The Most Drastic Fear

I have already explained that my worst fear is disappointing myself. The thing is, everytime I think of what my life needs to have the quality of being good enough, so as not to be disappointing, is love.

My friends tell me that I over-analyze things, and that sometimes something catches my attention so much that I focus my attention to that detail so much such that it seems essential to everything.

And that's actually what happened. I do all that, and I have over-analyzed the concept of love, and discovered through my analysis that there is only one kind of love that is so meaningful, to the point of making it so satisfying that you can be sure to never be disappointed. This love is the one that happens in the context of an open-relationship.

I have mentioned before that I would explain my position on open-relationships. This post does not explain the analysis used to reach that conclusion, but it explains why I wish to realize this type of relationship so fanatically. It is seems to be the only way to a love that I can swear by!!

The Most Drastic Fear

My dad always tells me that I should fear nothing in life, and that he has no fear of anything. I believed him, but never understood the extent of what that meant. However, recently he told us somethings that showed me the extent of how much a man can fear nothing. My dad works currently in Saudi Arabia, not in a city, in a village secluded from civilization. My dad when he feels bored on weekends, he like to go drive far away. So he takes the car and drives away, and he does not turn back. No.... when the night hits, he parks a little off-road in the desert, puts a sleeping bag on the sand and sleeps.

This stricked me as something only a truly fearless man would do. He can sleep in the middle of the desert, when he could have just as easily turned back and eventually sleep at home. And it makes me think how much my life could have been different if I were as fearless as my father.

I have contemplated on my own fears, and was very conflicted when I tried to see if I had so many fears, or so few of them. I could not understand whether or not I have too few or too many fears. However, in a moment of clarity, I saw the answer to my question. I have conquered all fears, including the fear of death.

However, there is still one fear that tops it all: The fear of disappointing myself. My only fear is that when I see my end, and death would be near, I would take a look back at my life... similar to the flash backs they say a person has when he's dying, say falling from a tall building. So I only fear for my future self, to witness such a flash back and be disappointed. Every other fear I have conquered, except this one!


PS: As a postscript, it is also worth mentioning, that I fear for myself only those few moments before death, but no concern at all for anything after that, because death would be the complete inexistence of my conscience, so there is no me to be concerned about. I also don't fear sudden death, where I would not have seen that flash back. And from this I understand that I don't fear death itself.

Cleanternet: For A Cleaner and Safer Internet

Who doesn't want a cleaner internet?! Who doesn't want to put a stop to Child pornography, as well as, all the other evils that come with the internet. We all do want a cleaner internet, and Cleanternet is the solution. Lets all raise our hands in support of this progressive movement....

Click here for a video demonstration about the proposal for Cleanternet...

Barack Obama Speaks About Religion And Secularism

Click here for a Youtube video, showing a very interesting speech made by the US President, Barack Obama.

I loved the whole speech, especially the part that says:

"Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason." - Barack Obama

For the full speech click here

Some Comments Have Been Lost

While I was browsing some of the old blog posts here on my blog, I noticed some posts that had "0 comments", which I was pretty sure that I did receive several comments on. Needless to say, I never authorized such a deletion of contents and I am very disappointed how Google would let something like this happen. I did not suppose Google would be unreliable so as to lose dozens of comments on this blog.

I am going to communicate with Google in an attempt to retrieve as much as possible of the lost comments (I think its unlikely they lost the content for good, although I cannot be sure how co-operative they will be in this regard).

Anyways, any concerned blogger should recheck old posts for missing comments. If my observation is correct, the affected posts are those made during or before the year 2006.

Digital Copies Are Not Theft

Some proponents of digital copyright laws make the conjecture that "pirating" movies and music is an act of theft, and that it constitutes in some way stealing. However, this is completely ludicrous as the concept of theft is directly constructed on the concept of starvation.

The concept of starvation is that when someone steals an item, the owner of that item loses it. So if a thief steals your car, you can no longer have that car. While theft might not be universally evil in all situations (consider a starving man stealing food to stay alive - X-Ref), but digital copies are in no way resembling the act of theft. Simply put, there is no starvation in a digital world. Pirated copies are, as the name suggests, "copies" and the content in question is still available to its original owner.

However, don't jump to conclusions. Proving that pirating digital material is not theft, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimacy of piracy. However, it is imperative to make this distinction when corporations are willing to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to delegitimize digital piracy.

Richard Dawkins Planning to Get the Pope Arrested

Richard Dawkins - atheist campaigner and evolutionist - is planning to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he comes to Britain later this year for "crimes against humanity".

As most people know, Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of involvement in the cover up operation of child-molestation executed by some priests. However, at that time there was no legal action taken against him to hold him responsible in helping the priests in question avoid legal liability.

The major setback in this case is that the Pope is head of state (the Vatican), which provides immunity from prosecution. However, Dawkins is hoping to create a legal case which can circumvent the immunity given to the Pope.

Another case-in-point is that this alleged cover up has been done while the Pope was still a Cardinal. This is useful, because the immunity from prosecution is given to crimes that the head of state commits while being in the said position -not before. Hence, the Pope would be charged for an offense before he actually became Pope, and this might help make a legal case for the prosecution.

Click here for news item
Click here for Richard Dawkins blog entry

Clouded Vision

I have been asking myself lots of questions these days... Am I happy? If not, can I ever be? Would I ever figure out what I need to get there? Have I done the right choices in my life? Have I done the wrong choices? How can I find out? And if I figure that I have done wrong choices, would there be anything to do to fix them? Or is it too late for fixing critical mistakes?

I have went to study the masters in the United Arab Emirates, I left home, family and friends. I thought this would be an opportunity to change my life, or even maybe myself. My current environment is completely changed. But neither my life nor myself have changed... I find that I have changed everything but myself... Is this a sign? Does this mean that I love my life and I don't want it to change? Or does this mean that I am repeating my past mistakes? How do I know the difference? Would changing my environment yet again help me to a fresh start? Or would I end up repeating the same mistakes yet again?

Is there something flawed in my method? Or is it that I have simply not been given the opportunity to reap the fruit? Can I ever forgive myself for the disappointment? Or do I have no reason to be disappointed in myself?

Am I too critical of myself that I don't see the greatness of my achievements? Or have I been too easy on myself that I put myself on a path of disappointment? Should I try harder or let go?

Questions, but no answers!! Is it too late to find the answers?

Cheating

"Everyone has that first date. And the object is to hide your flaws, and then you are in a relationship and its all about hiding your disappointment, then once you are married its about hiding your sins."

Adelle DeWitt / Dollhouse

Going Away.... To The Future

Infected Mushrooms in "The Cities of the Future":

We gonna run run run
To the cities of the future
Take what we can and bring back home
So take me down to the cities of the future
Everybody's happy and i feel at home

I found myself going away
Never wanting to go back again.
Leaving all my thoughts behind
Searching for some new ones inside. (Full lyrics)

I, a long time ago, have promised myself to leave all that I have known for something better..... Someday!

Pelagianism: An Unorthodox Christian View

Pelagianism is Christian denomination that reforms the understanding about salvation; that is, the means by which humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. Pelagianism challenges two views held by most Christian churches, namely: The concept of the "Original Sin" and the salvation provided by the crucification of Jesus. Pelagianism was founded by a British monk called Pelagius.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his descendants and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation before he sinned. Pelagius taught that salvation could be attained through free will alone, without the redemption of divine grace.

Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

Thusly, Pelagius claims that humans are fully responsible through their free will, for both sins and goodness. Because by denying the effect of the original sin on mankind, humans cannot justify their actions as a consequence of the original sin. Likewise, humans are responsible for their own goodness and their own salvation. In a certain sense, and according to the teachings of Pelagius, Jesus' existence was a living proof that humans can be good, and had no redemption value beyond that.

Let's Pray To Satan

Meta-Religion: RHP vs LHP

One of the main concepts that need to be addressed when analyzing religions is the difference between a Left Hand Path (LHP) religion, and a Right Hand Path (RHP) religion. Since the exact definition of the RHP and LHP is not well established, I will approach those concepts from a point of view that is most meaningful for my personal views.

Most mainstream religions follow the RHP; Examples include all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Most Satanic divisions follow the LHP.

So what do those paths entail?!

The main difference between those two paths is their views to individualism, morality, meaning, and the way their followers perceive idealism. First of all, LHP religions emphasize individualism and self-reliance. The RHP emphasizes the need for a deity or a divine being. The RHP believes that humans cannot achieve goodness on their own. The intent of "Right-Hand Path" belief systems is to attain proximity to divinity, or integration with divinity. That's why we find RHP followers try to connect with a divine being through different methods. The RHP conceives perfection of its deity, and tries to achieve that perfection through methods dictated by that deity, or by imitating that deity.

We find that this issue in particular is a major attack point of RHP followers against LHP followers. Although atheism is not strictly a LHP (some atheists might subscribe to the RHP), but we find that RHP followers are afraid of atheists. Atheists are usually described as being immoral while "God" followers are described as moral. A common argument that RHP followers usually present is that they attain their morals from their holy books and their God, then they ask where do the atheists get their morals from?!

"Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy." — Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League

"How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world." — Tim Wildmon, American Family Association

If we look in depth at that argument we find that those RHP followers cannot perceive morality to be attained without a deity. This approach is very dangerous; A good article on this subject called: "Positive Atheism: Ethical Stability" demonstrates the volatility of the RHP approach to morality.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." — Albert Einstein

While the above quote handles a slightly different issue that might not apply to all RHP religions, this is another argument about the moral volatility of some mainstream religions.

In short, the RHP religions are based on the belief that humans need a deity to achieve goodness, morality, idealism, giving their life meaning, deliverance, and many other concepts that they believe that they cannot achieve on their own. In contrast, the LHP is based on the belief that humans need to work on and make an effort to achieve goodness, morality, meaning, ...etc, and that humans can achieve those results on their own. Results may vary, one person might find meaning different than another, another might find morality different than another, and some might define goodness different than others. Some might achieve their set goals, other might not. No deities are needed, no supernaturals, only the work of human hands. As we can see, choice and responsibility are very necessary for the LHP.

RHP is based on the belief that humans need to be part of something larger than themselves. They need a deity to give their lives meaning. The RHP religions usually require submission to a collective group and\or a deity. For this reason, we find that RHP followers are usually involved in working for a "greater will", a "divine plan", or "God's will"!! All those concepts diminish the value of the individual because those individuals are only perceived to have value through their connection to the deity. On the other hand, the LHP emphasizes the value of the individual independently of any groups they might participate in. The LHP is solitary, individualistic, personal, based on self-development, self-analysis, and self-empowerment.

This shades some light on the common questions Satanists receive by those with a RHP background. "Why do you worship Satan?", "Who do you worship?", as pressing as it might seem to the RHP followers to know "who to worship", this question is of least significance in the LHP, and is also pretty much meaningless question. The need of an object to worship is a characteristic of the RHP that can be very blinding when applying this methodology to a LHP religion. The RHP followers fail to perceive a religion where there is no-one to worship, where there is no leader to follow, where there is no absolute book of truth.

Another aspect where the LHP and RHP differ is their attitude toward the concept of darkness. LHP usually embraces darkness, while RHP usually fears darkness. Darkness symbolizes lack of sight, or more generally lack of knowledge. Darkness also symbolizes the unknown.

So why does the RHP fear the darkness while the LHP embraces it?!

The reason is that RHP is based on the belief that the humans lack the ability to learn and to explore the unknown. RHP is based on the concept of guidance. RHP depends on a divine being guiding its followers, a divine being to light up their path and show them the way. In contrast, the LHP is based on self-reliance. LHP encourages exploration of the darkness. LHP is based on the the humans' ability to create light in the darkness. So LHP does not avoid the darkness, but encourages its followers to explore that darkness, uncover its deepest secrets, and bring it into the light.

The conception of "God" is an obvious example of the RHP disbelief in the humans' ability to explore the unknown. While the exact details of the origin of the universe is unknown, the RHP simply does not give humans the chance to explore, and discover the reality of the origins of the universe on their own. Instead, the RHP provides unfounded conception of "God", thus releasing its followers from the need to explore.

In addition to what has been said, the LHP differs from the RHP in that the LHP emphasizes on freethought, whereas the RHP is usually dogmatic with strict rules. The LHP expects its followers to individually investigate, analyze, and decide their own set of beliefs, morals, ethics, make their own decisions, and plan their own lives. This is evident in all LHP literature that leaves so much for the individual to decide on their own. On the other hand, the RHP expects its followers to follow a strict set of rules and dogma. Many followers of the RHP become too engaged with following rules, and if no rules exist in their books, they might consult a theologian of their respective religion. Some RHP religions reach ridiculous extents in such rulings, that some RHP religions interfere with the personal life of its followers. For example, Islam and Judaism have strict rules of what its followers may and may not eat... In my personal opinion, those fine-grained rules that handles the most trivial issues, such as what and what not to eat, shows how much those RHP religions are absorbed in the process of dogmatism and the dire need for submission.

To make it in few points:

• RHP is the path of dependence on and\or submission to an ideal being, with perceived perfection, usually a deity.
  
• RHP is the path lightened by the perceived ideal, and guidance is provided through that ideal or its teachings.
  
• RHP is the path of integration with something larger than oneself, usually a deity, or the group of followers.
  
• LHP is the path of independence and self-reliance.
  
• LHP is the path of freethought.
  
• LHP is the path of responsibility through choice.
  
• LHP is the path of creating your own conception of morality, goodness, and idealism.
  
• LHP is the path of unguided explorations, and uncovering the unknown.
  
• LHP is the path of appreciating your own individualism and uniqueness.

Get 'Em Boys

Hamas launches over 70 rockets towards Israeli civilians...
One Israeli civilian killed.

Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is a hero!
He threw a pair of shoes at G. W. Bush, the president of America.

Egypt saves the day.
Egypt sends ambulances to Palestine in response to Israeli attacks that killed and injured hundreds.

Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3

The Book of Lucifer:
The "book of Lucifer" is my personal favorite part of the Satanic Bible. This is the book of Enlightenment. While the "book of Satan" states many of the Satanic beliefs, it lacks presenting explanations and justifications for those beliefs. The "book of Lucifer" is basically the more explained and justified part of the bible.

Lavey provides this magnificent introduction:
The Roman god, Lucifer, was the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, the personification of enlightenment. In Christian mythology he became synonymous with evil, which was only to have been expected from a religion whose very existence is perpetuated by clouded definitions and bogus values! It is time to set the record straight. False moralisms and occult inaccuracies must be corrected. Entertaining as they might be, most stories and plays about Devil worship must be recognized as the obsolete absurdities they are. It has been said "the truth will make men free". The truth alone has never set anyone free. It is only DOUBT which will bring mental emancipation. Without the wonderful element of doubt, the doorway through which truth passes would be tightly shut, impervious to the most strenuous poundings of a thousand Lucifers. How understandable that Holy Scripture should refer to the Infernal monarch as the "father of lies" - a magnificent example of character inversion. If one is to believe this theological accusation that the Devil represents falsehood, then it surely must be concurred that it was HE, NOT GOD, THAT ESTABLISHED ALL SPIRITUAL RELIGIONS AND WHO WROTE ALL OF THE HOLY BIBLES! When one doubt is followed by another, the bubble, grown large from long accumulated fallacies, threatens to burst. For those who already doubt supposed truths, this book is revelation. Then Lucifer will have risen. Now is the time for doubt! The bubble of falsehood is bursting and its sound is the roar of the world!

References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)

In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3